A Peace Action affiliate leader asked for input on how to respond to critics of the Iranian nuclear deal. Below, I present the suggestions I made to the leader and conclude with some broader judgments.
Critics' Claims Followed by Suggested Responses
1) Lifting sanctions will free up money -- mostly from frozen assets -- for additional support by Iran for terrorism.
Response: The cost of bringing oil production to full-speed may use up most or all of the freed-up money, to say nothing about repairing the other economic damage caused by the sanctions. The fact that about 60% of Iranians are 35 years or younger will generate pressure to ramp up educational and job-training spending.
2) The approximately 24-day period before undeclared sites can be inspected will allow Iran to clean up such sites.
Response: In addition to putting an undeclared site out out of business for a time, Energy Secretary Ernest Muniz has said there are ways to determine if nuclear development activity had been taking place, such as nuclear particles being present. Furthermore, any three UN Security Council members can put re-inspection in place to prevent re-activation.
3) Since those testifying have agreed that the sanctions were the main reason Iran came to the negotiating table, ever harsher sanctions should induce further concessions from Iran.
Response: As Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has pointed out, the sanctions worked because the negotiating partners and the world's nations, in general, have honored them. In the absence of a agreement, other nations would feel free to trade with Iran today. In other words, unilateral U.S. sanctions would have significantly less effect than sanctions honored worldwide.
4) Since the agreement specifies that only a violation of nuclear activity triggers a "snapback" of sanctions, Iran could be linked to a major act of terrorism and not trigger sanctions.
Response: Secretary of State John Kerry read a list of laws and policies that are designed to deter and/or penalize acts of terrorism. Violations of nuclear agreements and acts of terrorism can be sanctioned/penalized separately.
5) After the embargoes on conventional arms and ballistic missile components expire, Iran will be free to acquire them.
Response: It is difficult to maintain any restriction in perpetuity. Absent the embargo provisions, Iran could start trading for these arms today. Note also that continued provision of arms to other Middle Eastern nations would give hard-line Iranian generals a strong talking point to resist any prohibition on Iran acquiring arms.
What are the alternatives? The alternatives are: renegotiation; making the Middle East a Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone; letting Iran build nuclear weapons; and military action. Renegotiation is a nonstarter, as both our negotiating partners and Iran itself are highly unlikely to agree to it. Through renegotiation, Iran would show itself as a weak nation and thus draw the scorn of other nations.
The nuclear weapons nations have been strong opponents of a Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone in the Middle East.
The United States and Israel, in particular, are adamantly opposed to Iran ever getting a nuclear weapon. Even proposing such a proposition would bring a firestorm of opposition.
Military action would bring furious Iranian retaliation; embroil the U.S. in yet another war in the Middle East; and potentially cause millions of deaths if nuclear weapons are used to destroy Iran's deeply-buried nuclear facilities.
Rather than continuing the bitter conflict that abrogation of the nuclear agreement would bring, maintenance of it could bring about the diplomatic space that could make Iran a player in trying to resolve other Middle Eastern points of conflict.
No comments:
Post a Comment